I'm really struggling with the concept of a macro shoot-out:
- those lenses should all be pretty sharp at standard testing distances/magnifications of 1:30-1:100.
- it is extremely hard to test the image quality at say 1:2 magnification, because I simply don't have a test-target resolving fine enough.
- most image imperfections of a macro lens tend to be outweighed by the influence of either extremely shallow dof and field curvature at large apertures or diffraction when stopping down.
- Is field curvature an interesting topic? I've never really measured it, although it's easy enough to give you an impression on a perfectly flat target. But then: do you care?

So any input on that would be interesting from those voting for a macro shootout.

The others should just go ahead and vote/comment on their favorite subjects...

I'd like to see a 40mm micro review as well, right now I'm saving up for the 105mm micro, but it would still be interesting to see the test results of the 40mm. It really is an interesting budget option.

Thomas,you know what would be great? A comparisson of those 2 macros with the Tamron 60mm F/2.0. I really like the Tammy & it would be the only macro lens in this range I would buy,because of it's bright aperture (& very crisp details).
I believe that a good macro can be doubled for a portrait lens & something like F/3.5 isn't that great.